this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
163 points (93.1% liked)

World News

39367 readers
2315 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] blahsay@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago (21 children)

Tolerance is not a moral requirement but a social contract.

By social contract I mean it's an agreement that I will tolerate you as long as you tolerate me.

Islamic groups literally want some sections of western society dead (queer community etc) and other sections subjugated (women). They violate the contract and we shouldn't be accepting of that.

tldr: We shouldn't pander to people who think a book burning means someone should die.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (22 children)

Not all Muslims are like that though. Most are very level headed and tolerant of others and their religions too. If all Muslims were how you described, with how many there are in the world there would be literal chaos every day.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Level headed people shouldn't be out of their mind because some nutjob burns a book. Pretty sure people who are like you write aren't keen on getting blasphemy laws back.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sure, but I have received a few messages from Muslims--and only Muslims--threatening to overtake Western civilization so that I'll be put in my place. I don't know of any other group that does that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

What does the Quran say they are supposed to do to apostates?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

There is literal chaos every day.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago (3 children)

2 years imprisonment for burning any religious text? That's insane

[–] Moghul@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There was an AMA on reddit some time ago with a guy who had been convicted for embezzlement. His imprisonment consisted of effectively living in the prison but otherwise being allowed to leave during the day, go to work, etc. That's probably the kind of imprisonment you can expect. I'm not saying that's not bad. I'm just saying, it's not as bad as you might think. I tried googling it but I can't find it.

Personally, I disagree with the decision but do understand it. The government just doesn't want more conflict between people, and it doesn't care how it gets it. It makes sense 'mechanically', but I think it's a significant blow to freedom of expression. It also adds to the list of reasons why people will vote more right wing in the future, which sucks.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Yep. The answer to the paradox of tolerance is absolutely NOT to capitulate to the intolerant.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pissing on religious text would still be an option lmao

Edit: nvm I read the article, how lame lol

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Damn, there goes using bible paper for joints (aka holy smokes)

[–] Cyberjin@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's really a sad moment in history. Sure, it's really in bad taste if ones does it, but it's your property and it's just paper at the end of day.

They might as well start drawing the prophet Muhammad, it's probably cheaper too.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I am making this clear. This is a drawing of Mohammed, the founder of Islam in the 7th century.

[–] avater@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

stupid misleading headline! The bill covers not only the quran but the public burning of all books with importance for religious groups.

The law criminalizes the "inappropriate treatment of writings with significant importance for a recognized religious community."

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great, it's still a stupid and insane law. Prohibit ALL public burnings of books? Ok I think it's stupid, but whatever. But only protect those with religious significance? This is just an awful precedence.

Religions don't deserve respect, because they don't respect others. Nevermind the fact that they are essentially fables and folklore told by adults.

[–] threeLetterMeyhem@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Prohibit ALL public burnings of books? Ok I think it’s stupid, but whatever.

I'm OK with prohibited public burnings for the purpose of fire safety, I guess. Beyond that, I don't think I'd want to limit free speech in this manner.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Exactly it's dumb, but restricting it just to religious texts is even dumber.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This feels weird to me. Book bans I'm wholly against. But also throwing people in jail for burning paper seems strange as well. Like, I'm queer as hell and used to be religious. But if you want to wrap a Bible in a rainbow flag and burn it, then whatever. Waste of resources. But throwing people in prison over something some fraction of any population believes in (without violence, racism or hatespeech) seems excessive and favors religion.

Violence, hatespeech, racism, banning books, obviously all bets are off. I just wish everyone could dial back everything about 10 notches.

[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As a German any burning of books feels weird to me. Especially when done by racists to show how much they hate minorities

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] formergijoe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

According to the law, you can't wrap a Bible in a rainbow flag and burn it either. 'The law criminalizes the "inappropriate treatment of writings with significant importance for a recognized religious community."'

[–] Railison@aussie.zone 16 points 1 year ago

Over on YouTube, thunderfoot did a fun thought experiment. He filled a hard disk full of copies of the Quran and then proceeded to zero over all of them. Is destroying thousands of digital copies of the Quran equivalent to burning them?

[–] Saxoboneless@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't understand the replies here - this bill was drafted in response to multiple events where ethno-nationalists burned the Qur'an in front of audiences with the implicit intent to incite violence against Denmark's Muslim minority population. If you read the article, the bill bans the only the public burning of any religious book, not just the Qur'an. This bill would not "limit freedom of speech," it would limit a form of hate speech and arguably stochastic terrorism being employed by the far right in Denmark. I do not see a problem with this bill.

[–] Newguy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree. It's for the security of their democracy. Funny thing a Muslim was allowed to burn a Torah and a Holy Bible and those same people were upset. Tit for tat, now it's against the law.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (20 children)

I am very sorry that the leaders of Denmark are willing to give up their right of freedom of speech of their population for so little. I wonder what rights they will give up next as part of their appeasement.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] Crampon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (12 children)

First western nation to fall due to demands from terrorist. Ask and they shall receive I guess.

This will be the first text in some insane dominos memes in the future.

Meme government.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

As distasteful as it is, this falls squarely within the paradox of tolerance. There is no reason to burn the quran other than to stick it to "those" people. It's trolling, it's intolerant, it does not promote social peace, it does not even promote any kind of dialogue on religious bigotry, it's just an act of hatred, a fuck you. And the sovereign Danish parliament decided that in their country, the value of this particular fuck you is not worth the disturbance to the peace. They have decided to not tolerate this particular kind of intolerance. Disagree with them all you like, but I see a rationale and it's far from pointless. "Free speech absolutism" might be an American foundational value but that simply is not the case in the rest of the world. And a democracy, like Denmark, may legitimately decide to resolve the paradox in this way at this point in their history, and they are perfectly free to reverse this down the line. They chose to limit one freedom, that frankly is mostly used in a petulant, childish and intolerant way, in the interest of peace. Good on them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] samokosik@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I personally believe that no discrimination against people based on religion, race, color of skin is appropriate. So I believe that any islamophobic symbol is incorrect.

However, same rule applies to the other side. No islamic minorities should show symbols which could be disrespectful towards different people.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)

I don't see how someone burning a copy of a book that they paid for themselves is discrimination. It is criticism and protest, but not discriminatory. It isn't denying anyone else's access to the words in the book. It's just making a political statement.

Ideas should always be allowed to be criticized. Inanimate objects shouldn't be given human rights.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Eh, I get what they are trying to go for, but this kind of appeasement won't fix a group that doesn't believe in the democracy they live in. What, will they also ban drawing Mohammed since it also upsets muslims and thus incites violence?

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Danish parliament on Thursday approved legislation that would effectively prohibit Quran burnings in the northern European country.

Burning, tearing, or defiling religious texts in public could land people up to one or two years behind bars or a fine.

Destroying a holy text on video and then disseminating the footage online could also put offenders in jail.

The Danish Justice Ministry has said the law aims to combat the "systematic mockery" which raises terror threat levels in Denmark.

"History will judge us harshly for this, and with good reason," Inger Stojberg of the right-wing anti-immigration Denmark Democrats party said in response to the bill's passage.

The bill, backed by Denmark's center-right coalition government, was originally introduced in August and then amended due to freedom of speech concerns.


The original article contains 338 words, the summary contains 128 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›